Good luck Pitseleh & congrats on making it to the final four.
Same to you.
Montreal’s Advantages
Top-end defense: My team’s top three defensemen, a balanced trio that can shoot, pass, defend and hit, gives the Canadiens a significant advantage. Brad Park is the best defenseman in the series, and he will receive aroubd 28 minutes of ice time per game. Park was excellent defensively and used smart positioning and a thunderous, aggressive hip-check to shut down opponents. Park was also a first-rate stickhandler, had an excellent breakout pass, and heavy slap shot. The Clippers’ top defenseman, Siebert, was certainly tough and aggressive but lacked Park’s goal-scoring and playmaking abilities. Guy Lapointe was a speedy, tough defenseman. He was an aggressive hitter and had a great slapshot that allowed him to record years with 28, 25 & 21 goals. Lapointe can clear the puck of the zone, contribute on the PP, and play smart defensive hockey. Stapleton was a strong positional defenseman with a great breakout pass. Lapointe and Stapleton will get around 25 and 22 minutes per game, respectively. (I have Stapleton on the third pair but he will get additional ice time on the powerplay and will be shifted to the top line when the Canadiens are trailing late).
Park is the best defenseman in this series and Lapointe is arguably second (at worst, he is significantly better than both Stanley & Mantha). All three of my top defenseman can shoot and pass whereas the Clippers have two defenders with minimal scoring capabilities (Seibert & Stanley). All of my top three can hit and play smart positional hockey. Overall, Nainamo’s top three are good defensively, but they lack my defense’s goal-scoring, playmaking and I have the better #1 and #2 defensemen by a good margin.
I do agree that the offense from your top-3 on defense is a big challenge I'm going to have to overcome. But I do think you underrate my defense's offensive ability. Stanley finished top-5 in defensive scoring 5 times during the regular season and was top-4 7 times during the playoffs. Seibert was a top-5 scorer on defense 8 times. Mantha, in addition to being the defensive conscience of those high scoring Habs teams, was also the leading scorer from the back end.
Obviously none of those guys were as dominant as Park/Lapointe, but I do feel that they are more than adequate to serve their purpose. I also feel that they fit into Day's system as a whole. We're a team that's focussed around strong team defense, and I feel that they should be capable, at worst, at ensuring clean breakouts from our zone for our forwards. It should be noted that Day's Leafs teams were very successful with defense corps based around strong defensive defensemen like Bucko McDonald, Jimmy Thomson, Bob Goldham, Gus Mortson and Bill Barilko.
Second line: My second line’s scoring ability and playoff performances gives the Canadiens distinct advantage. Center Sid Abel was a tough, scrappy player and a proven playoff veteran. When he retired, he was 4th all-time in playoff scoring, he led the league in goals twice, and finished in the top five in assists seven times (just two fewer times than Oates). Abel won a Hart trophy and was a finalist another year (the only Hart winner on either team’s second line). RW Babe Dye led the league in goal-scoring three times and won two Art Ross trophies. He won the Conn Smythe in 1922 and led the playoffs in goals and points. Gary Roberts is another proven playoff veteran who will use his size and strength to make room for Abel and Dye. Pitseleh says that Odie Cleghorn will be used in the same role for the Clippers—but I’d easily take Roberts (5 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier) for that physical role.
Nainamo has a solid second line, but they don’t compare. They have no Hart or Conn Smythe winners (while I have Abel & Dye, respectively). They have no goal-scoring leaders (Abel & Dye). Roy Conacher won 1 Art Ross, but Dye has 2 (and Abel & Dye have each been runner-ups). Finally, Roberts is much more suited to the role of creating space than Odie Cleghorn, his counterpart
One small correction, Conacher led the league in goals once. And to compare, in his five best seasons, Dye led the league in goals three times and was a runner up twice while Conacher led the league once and was a runner up four times. Dye has an advantage, but the difference between their records is pretty small, especially when you factor in that Conacher missed four seasons during his prime due to the war. I'm not a fan of giving players credit for things they didn't accomplish when it comes to injury, but in an extenuating circumstance beyond a player's control like a war, I think it should be taken into account.
I'm also not sure what you have for the heights/weights of Cleghorn and Roberts, but Ultimate Hockey lists Cleghorn at 5'9, 195 while Roberts is 6'1, 190 at Hockeydb (and 6'2, 212 at ESPN). He may have put on some weight compared to early in his career, but he's also lost a bit of his edge with age as well. So, even if Cleghorn does give up some size, but he was built very strongly. What Cleghorn gives up in creating space for his linemates he adds in scoring compared to Roberts. Cleghorn was a much more dominant scorer, during his stints in both the NHL and the NHA. In addition, though he does give up quite a bit in size to Roberts, his linemates are also much smaller. Abel gives up 20 pounds on Oates while Dye gives up 5" and 25 pounds on Conacher. While Cleghorn isn't the primary offensive focus on that line, making room for his linemates will not be nearly as important as it will for Roberts.
Physical play: Nanaimo is coming from a long, close series against a very tough, physical team. This, combined with the fact that they’re a very small team, makes the vulnerable to my team’s superior size. Nainmo’s top line features Lalonde (5’9”, 168 lbs), Bentley (5’8”, 145 lbs) and Taylor (size unknown, but I doubt he’s over 170 lbs). They would most likely face Park and Magnuson, two of the strongest and most aggressive hitters of their era. They would also be covered by my third line, which features one positional player in Mosdell and two large, physical checkers in Armstrong and Peplinski. The rest of the Clippers’ lineup is very small too (Adam Oates is the biggest player on their second line, and that says a lot, while Paul Thomson (5’10”, 180 lbs) is the largest player on their third line). I have superior physical throughout the lineup, with large, strong checkers like Lapointe, Westfall, Roberts and Beck. This distinct advantage, with so many large, physical players relentlessly checking Nainamo’s small group of forwards, will allow the Canadiens to wear down the Clippers.
I do agree that size in my top-6 is lacking, though I do feel as though I don't think you have a huge advantage. Lalonde/Taylor and Mikita/Wharram is essentially a wash, while Smith was bigger than Bentley but neither were physical. While my second line may be small, between our two second lines, I have three of the four biggest players.
Physical play from your third line is the decided advantage with Peplinski and Armstrong. But I do think I have some of the toughest players out of either of our teams. Seibert was physically imposing and the only man Shore was afraid to fight, while Siebert was part of the 'S Line' with Nels Stewart and Hooley Smith, which was one of the toughest lines in hockey. He also lay a savage beating on Shore. O'Reilly is one of the toughest players to ever play the game.
Coaching. I agree that Hap Day is the better coach, though Adams (who won three Stanley Cups and was twice named the best coach in the league) is quite solid. I will again emphasize that Adams (who favored tough, two-way players) will get to coach a team that was designed for his style of play (as Mikita, Abel, Park, Armstrong, Westfall, among others, all play aggressive but disciplined hockey with a team-first mentality).
One thing I would like to mention is that when Jack Adams and Hap Day's teams faced off in the playoffs, Day beat Adams three times while losing only once.
It should also be noted that Detroit was up 3-0 on Toronto in 1942 and proceeded to lose, sparked by an outburst by Adams that caused him to be suspended for the rest of the series in Game 4. It's been said that it was one of the key factors to Toronto's turnaround.
Even my top line has a Hart, Art Ross and Conn Smythe winner in Mikita, proven chemistry with Wharram, and 3-time all-star, 3-time top-five goal-scorer Sid Smith. In other words, Nainamo’s advantage from their top line will be offset by my second line.
I obviously disagree with this assessment. While Mikita is the best player between either top line, Lalonde isn't too far off from his level of talent, Bentley and Taylor were both much more dynamic players than either Smith or Wharram.
On the flip side, Abel was a much more talented goal scorer than Oates but an inferior playmaker (I'm only counting six top-5 assist years, though I may be missing something). So Oates led the league three times to Abel's zero and was top-5 9 times to Abel's 6. Dye and Conacher are very close in production - Dye had 3 top goal scoring finishes and 3 runner ups to Conacher's 1 top finish and 4 runner ups. And again, Cleghorn was a much more dominant scorer than Roberts. So Abel and Dye get nods, albeit slim ones, over Oates and Conacher, while I'd give it to Cleghorn over Roberts. But even if you assume it's a wash for Roberts' physical play, I don't think that difference is as significant as two rather large differences on the first line.
Bottom 6? I disagree that Nainamo has a better bottom six. They are probably better offensively, but not in terms of overall play.
- I agree that Thomson is better than Peplinski (I’m using Peplinski instead of Holmstrom this series)
- Mosdell is better than Goyette. Mosdell was usually the #1 penalty killer and defensive forward on the Candiens; Goyette played behind Claude Provost & Ralph Backstrom, who always got the toughest assignments. Marshall & Nevin generally had the toughest defensive assignments for the Rangers. Mosdell was Goyette’s equal offensively. Mosdell finished in the top ten in goals and points twice, with a small fraction of the ice time Goyette received on the NYR. Finally, Goyette’s production drops off dramatically in the playoffs (from 0.72 ppg to 0.49 ppg).
- Rousseau is a better scorer than Armstrong, but not a better player. Armstrong was a top defensive forward who usually went up against opponents’ top lines. He’s a large player (3 inches taller and 40 lbs heavier than Rousseau) and will be used to relentless check Nainamo’s small top line. Armstrong gets a big advantage due to his leadership (captain and leader of 4 Stanley Cup champions). Rousseau was a solid two-way player but can’t match Armstrong’s leadership, defensive play, or size & toughness.
- I agree that Leswick (top defensive forward and two season as top-10 goal-scorer) is better than Marcotte.
- Neither Riseborough or Skov will score much but Skov finished as high as 3rd in assists and 6th in playoff scoring. Both are probably equal defensively, but Skov has chemistry with his linemate Leswick.
- O’Reilly and Westfall are completely different players. O’Reilly is a better regular-season scorer, Westfall is much better defensively, both are about the same size. Both score 0.62 ppg in the playoffs; this is a 22% increase for Westfall vs a 9% drop for O’Reilly.
First off, I hope it didn’t seem like I was insinuating that my bottom-six was better than yours.
To address the specific points:
-Thompson is the biggest advantage offensively either of us has over the other. He was five times a top-10 scorer and four times a top-10 goal scorer (3 times top-5). No other player in either of our bottom-6’s compare offensively.
-I want to address Goyette’s point dropoff first. This is definitely a case of needing context with stats. Goyette played most of his playoff games (nearly 70%) when he wasn’t a primary offensive threat. So obviously his playoff PPG would be lower as they are skewed by the number of games he played as a third liner.
Second, according to what’s been posted in the History forum by pappyline (in the Richard versus Keon thread), Goyette played on a line with Provost during Montreal’s cup runs, meaning he would have seen the other team’s best offensive players.
Third, while Mosdell wasn’t his teams’ top offensive threat like Goyette was, he had a much stronger supporting cast. In Goyette’s best season when he finished fourth in the scoring race, the next three scorers on his team included Red Berenson, Frank St. Marseille and Ab McDonald. On the other hand, Mosdell never finished higher than fourth on his own team. That season the three players ahead of him were Boom Boom Geoffrion, Maurice Richard and Bert Olmstead (Jean Beliveau missed a fair bit of time with injury and Lach was well past his prime, so Mosdell had prime ice time that season).
- I agree that Armstrong is a better player than Rousseau.
-Leswick is a better scorer than Marcotte, but I think defensively they were very close. Marcotte is considered by many to be right behind Gainey during their era. Marcotte was also bigger, stronger and more physical than Leswick.
-Like Goyette, O’Reilly is hurt in PPG by lengthy playoff runs before he hit his prime. Between the ages of 25 and 34, O’Reilly’s PPG is 0.78. Westfall didn’t reach his first playoffs until he was 27. Westfall from 27 to 36 was 0.66 PPG (I was going to stop at 34 for fairness, but that would have excluded Westfall’s best playoff and would have lowered his PPG significantly). Essentially, by comparing their cumulative PPG’s, you’re penalizing O’Reilly for starting his career earlier and in a reduced role compared to Westfall.
Defensive depth? I disagree that Nainamo has better defensive depth. I concede that Siebert is better than any of my bottom three. However, while Ashbee and Hajt were both top shutdown defenseman, Ashbee was an all-star, a Norris finalist, and played a major role on the Flyers’ Cup-winning team. Pitre and Magnuson are completely different; Magnuson is a sublime defensive blueliner and Pitre was primarily a speedy forward. At best Nainamo has the better #4, but I have a better #5 and #6 is the ultimate contrast in styles.
Ashbee is a funny case because he only had 4 full seasons in the NHL, while Hajt was a top defensive defender for over a decade. Like you , I’m a fan of dominance over consistency, but I think this is one extreme case where I think consistency should play a role, IMO. A player with four seasons is an extreme case, and though he was very good those four seasons, Hajt maintained his level of play over a much longer period of time.
This has been fun HO. I have to say your knowledge of hockey history is just astounding. Best of luck.